text:
Can general aviation use UHF to contact ATC?
In the US, if a civil aircraft has a UHF radio are there any regulations against it performing ATC communication on the UHF bands?
Pointers to the appropriate CFR's would be appreciated.
This question does not concern operating under an emergency state of any kind. The aircraft is assumed to be in compliance with all regulations otherwise at the time.
The reason for excluding emergency status, is that in an emergency the FCC states you can use whatever methods available to obtain help.

Most ATC stations do not have UHF...

if all else fails, try facebook: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/33817352#33817352

@deltalima well I'm not asking for the ones that don't have it I'm asking for the ones that do. Most of the airport plates that I have seen list at least one UHF frequency with the VHF ones. It doesn't specify any where on the plate that the frequency is for civil or military craft. Only that that is the frequency that can be used to contact that ATC.

@federico that pilot was plainly operating under an emergency condition whether he declared it or not he should have. Under emergency conditions numerous services say that you can use whatever communication you have available to make contact. That is specifically why I excluded emergency communications from my question.

Can you give an example of one of these plates with a UHF frequency?

@ron beyer If you are unaware of uhf frequencies on airport plates, then you are also unlikely to be able to answer the question.

Rowan Hawkins I don't think that was an unreasonable question from @RonBeyer. There are quite a few people here (like Ron) who know to find their way in the regulations or have a network that can find the answer you are looking for. These people may not be using airport plates at all. If you would like others to help you finding an answer to your question, you may want to help them finding it.

@federico looks like I didn't read far enough down to see that he did end up squawking 7700.

@RowanHawkins mine wanted to be an half-arsed joke. I can delete it if you find it distracting.

@DeltaLima point taken. Ron usually at larger airports or those near military service airstations of which there are both nearby. The vhf frequencies are in the 118-130 mhz range, uhf frequencies are in the low 220's up to about 357 mhz

@Federico its fine, interesting, and an example of why I excluded emcomm

The UHF air band operates in AM in a general range of 225.0–399.95 MHz. Many ATC functions have both VHF and UHF frequencies. For example, Newark Liberty Tower uses 118.3 and 257.6. ATC will often broadcast on both the VHF and UHF frequencies.
You can look up these frequencies on the FCC frequency allocation table to see who is allowed to use these frequencies. This is also located in CFR Title 47, §2.106.
According to the table, the the non-emergency allocation of these frequencies is Federal use:

In the bands 225-328.6 MHz, 335.4-399.9 MHz, and 1350-1390 MHz, the fixed and mobile services are limited to the military services.
The bands 235-322 MHz and 335.4-399.9 MHz are also allocated on a primary basis to the mobile-satellite service, limited to military operations.

There are no non-Federal uses cited for those ranges. Also, per Title 47 §2.102(c):

Non-Federal stations may be authorized to use Federal frequencies in the bands above 25 MHz if the Commission finds, after consultations with the appropriate Federal agency or agencies, that such use is necessary for coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities

So it seems that if you don't have a military purpose, outside of special agreements you are not allowed to use these frequencies. For more information, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) has reports on the usage of the lower portion and upper portion of this band.

Technically there are also limited non-Federal uses but they don't apply to this question:

The frequency 243 MHz is the frequency in this band for use by survival craft stations and equipment used for survival purposes.
...may also be used, in accordance with the procedures in force for terrestrial radiocommunication services, for search and rescue operations concerning manned space vehicles.

For the gap in the ranges mentioned above:

The use of the band 328.6-335.4 MHz by the aeronautical radionavigation service is limited to Instrument Landing Systems (glide path).

And additionally for 322-328.6 MHz:

...all practicable steps shall be taken to protect the radio astronomy service from harmful interference.

I would guess that an airplane is a radio station with a specific FCC license to operate in certain bands; so transmitting in unauthorized bands would violate the terms of the station's (airplane's) FCC license.  Not adding this as an answer because I don't actually know anything.

I asked the question because for general aviation pilots there is no requirement for nor is there provision for an FCC license. Use of those frequencies is all devolved from the FAA. I was primarily hoping for anything listed in the FAA rules, but the FCC listing for the military aviation bands I had not thought to check beforehand.

@RowanHawkins Technically, the FCC has licensed US aircraft radio stations and pilots "by rule". And you can get a normal license for both; they're required to fly outside the US.

@StephenS I managed to find the abridged version of the agreement from Industry Canada. I'll have to find the same on the FCC site at some point. It has an interesting bit of wording. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf01222.html


text:
Can a nonresident American citizen get a Canadian helicopter license?
Is there anything preventing a non-resident American citizen from taking and obtaining a Canadian helicopter pilot license which could be converted to an American PPL helicopter certificate?
The reason I'm considering this is the current exchange rate is essentially a 25% discount off the listed Canadian price. Sure I have to drive a bit farther, but auto gas is cheap.

I'm not sure who edited the question, but it is not asking what I want to know now. I'm not asking about the Conversion. I'm asking about the ability to get the license in the first place. There is documentation on Canadian citizens converting to an FAA certificate I'm asking about the ability of an American non-resident getting the Canadian License. In Canada its called a license. In the US a certificate.

Just to clarify, you mean a US citizen who's not resident in Canada, rather than a US citizen who's not resident in the US, right? (From the answer, it seems ti doesn't make a differenc, but it's good to make the question nice and clear so that people who find it in the future can tell what it's about.)

That is correct. Not resident in Canada. I wanted to be clear that I don't have a work or other visa. Just a tourist which doesn't require a visa from the US if the stay is under a certain amount of time.

In the US it is a license as well, that's why they abbreviate it PPL and CPL.
Canada appears to have no restrictions on flight training of non-Canadians other than proving your own with something like a passport, because your citizenship is shown on your license. See this Transport Canada page as a starting point.
If you need to reside in Canada during your training and you expect to take longer than 6 months, you will need to obtain a Student Visa to remain in the country legally.  You could also use a Tourist Visa, neither of which would all you to work.
If you are planning on returning to the US when you are not training, then the Visa would not be required.
Converting a Canadian pilot license to a US pilot license is governed by AC 61.135a.. It doesn't look very complicated, but it will take time and you must take one or more knowledge tests as well as schedule an appointment at your local FSDO for the final approval.
Note also that while you don't have to surrender your Canadian license when you convert to a US license, if you do not that means that you must stay current based on both the US and Canadian rules.
I suggest you very carefully study the requirements and do the full math. Once you get started on one path it won't be easy to switch to the other if you then realize it was a mistake.
Interesting question, BTW. It was fun researching the answer. :)

Do you have a link to the visa requirement? and yes will be running several sets of numbers since the closest American school is an hour away and estimates $25k for a PPL. while the closest Canadian school is about 2:15 away so I'll be figuring in nexus costs and border bridge tolls.

The Canadian immigration web site has it. If you think your training will take less than six months, then you won't need a student visa or a tourist visa. But if it's going to be more than that you need one or the other, as far as I can see.

FWIW, I don't see how the cost of training will be so much lower that it comes out less when including cost of lodging, transportation, etc. I think it will be MORE expensive. ATAC estimates C$14k to C$35k for a PPL in between 12 and 25 weeks + all your ancillary costs. Then you have the costs of converting.
I'm seeing schools in the US quote $14k for PPL.

I don't plan on staying in Canada. I live 15km from a border crossing. I also have a full-time job in the US. The PPL I'm interested in isn't plane its helicopter. I haven't decided on the commercial license. The current  exchange rate is $1 cdn = 0.76 usd.

I have a choice between one location in the US that says it's the only one within 200 miles not that it's the best "the only". There are no reviews. In Canada there are 3 schools all within 200 kilometers. Which provide some competition to each other. As a result they have to be both better and better priced.

Could you edit your answer such that the Visa is only required if you plan on staying in Canada during your training for more than 6 months and then I will accept it. Since that isn't a requirement to actually take the license. I live close to the border. There is no reason for me to stay for an extended time in Canada to work on this.

This is a total nitpick, but "In the US it is a license as well, that's why they abbreviate it PPL and CPL." is not correct. The FAA refers to Pilot Certificates almost exclusively, and only occasionally uses the term 'license'. The actual plastic has a 'certificate number' on it and nowhere uses the term 'license'. Pilots in the US refer to "PPL" because it's a convenient abbreviation taken from elsewhere, afaict.

The $14k I quoted is for helo, not fixed wing. http://www.flyhaa.com/helicopter/costs/details/

Juan can you replace your comments about Canadian Immigration with the following . . . . .      If you need to reside or remain in Canada for longer than 6 months then you will need to meet the requirements for a student or travel visa. . . . . . . Then I will be able to accept this answer.

The my limited knowledge of immigration rules aside, something close to half of Canadian helicopter students are non Canadian so a quick phone call to the school you are considering should get some details on that side, the conversion commercial license conversion is just a matter of paperwork so the PPL shouldn't be an issue.
Detals of requred Id from The CAR's
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part4-standards-421-1086.htm
As for the cost there are some additional factors to address, first being at least in Canada most instructors will be hesitant to recommend all but the best 45 hour pilots for flight testing and some will say be prepared for up to 65 hours to meet the standard.
the second is the different training model in Canada vs the states, Canada tending to have much more experienced, and there for more experienced instructors, as well as things generally costing slightly more in Canada [parts, fuel etc.] leading to significantly higher flight costs ie. an example I found on the web
USD 332 p/h dual 277 p/h solo
Cad 540 p/h solo or dual [for insurance reasons I believe]
Cost difference aside, you get what you pay for and from talking to US trained pilots doing Canadian training, the average level of instruction is much higher.
In conclusion, Training in Canada, is likely to be the same or more than in the US, but will be higher quality [very important if you plan to do only 45 hours and not kill yourself afterwards] generally, if you can afford to fly a helicopter for fun the extra 20K or so for a commercial license is totally worth it. you can claim vocation training for tax, and your going to spend far more that that flying anyways, might as well improve your survival chances. If your concerned about the cost don't bother with a helicopter license. it's only going to get more expensive.
[Note: the op intends to convert to FAA than get FAA commercial this answer is not valid]

One thing to be careful of is your best price scenario. Its imaginary to the real world. That's not the price where I am. It may be a great price 2500 miles from me. It isn't incentive to quit the job funding this exploration. That's why I kept price strictly out of the question.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Swept wings: a subtle ambiguity?
In theory, a straight wing can be transformed to a swept wing, in two different ways:

A: by pivoting the straight wing about its root (analogous to an F-14 or F-111).
B: by shearing the straight wing, in a way that preserves the effective chord length.

According to most explanations, a swept wing design increases the critical Mach number of the wing, because the incident airflow experiences a reduced airfoil curvature. This is true in scenario A. As we can see from the diagram, after the wing is pivoted, the effective airfoil (pink) is longer than the original airfoil (black), and so it has a reduced curvature.
However, in scenario B, it seems that this explanation no longer holds. When a wing is sheared backwards, the effective airfoil is preserved.
My question is: does scenario B increase the critical Mach number compared to the straight wing, and if so, by what mechanism?

https://labs.engineering.asu.edu/aircraft-design/wp-content/uploads/sites/115/2023/03/AIAA2017-0266-KirkmanTakahashi-CriticalMachNumberPredictionOnSweptWings.pdf

@MichaelHall Purely a design sweep - apologies for the confusion.

@RobertDiGiovanni I can see how swept wing B has a lower critical Mach compared to swept wing A. However, I am wondering if swept wing B has a higher critical Mach compared to the straight wing. According to AeroAndy's PDF, the answers seems to be yes, because the sweep of the wing itself is important, in addition to the effective airfoil.

@natanijelvasic. Yes, the sweep definitely helps.  Originally wings were swept for balance purposes.  Later, it was discovered it helped increase the critical Mach number.  Amazingly, the thin wings, once though better at the then unheard of speed of 120 mph in the early 1900s, finally proved their worth in the trans sonic realm some 40 years later.

@MichaelHall "Shearing" is the proper term for the transformation that maps a rectangle to a parallelogram along one axis. You can look up "shear transformation". As it turns out, I found out today that my diagram is almost an exact copy from the book Introduction to Transonic Aerodynamics, and they use the same terms as I do: https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-94-017-9747-4_8/MediaObjects/187681_1_En_8_Fig6_HTML.gif

Yes, the sheared wing in scenario B increases the the critical Mach number as the sweep angle increases.
By what mechanism?
Short answer:
For a swept wing, the critical Mach number is defined as the free-stream Mach number at which we see a sonic velocity component, in the direction perpendicular to the wing's leading edge. As the sweep angle increases, this velocity component is initially scaled down by a factor of cos(Λ), and so a greater free-stream Mach is required for this component to become sonic as it accelerates over the wing.

Diagram from "Introduction to Transonic Aerodynamics" by Saeed Farokhi, Roelof Vos.
Long answer:
There are in fact two ambiguities to this problem. The first one is described in the question - pivot vs shear. The second one revolves around the definition of "critical Mach number".
Normally, the critical Mach number is defined as the free-stream Mach number at which we first see sonic flow over a body. If you imagine a vector field of velocities over the body, you are only interested in the magnitude of the velocity vectors.
In the analysis of swept wings, (and I will repeat myself) the critical Mach number is defined as the free-stream Mach number at which we see a sonic velocity component, in the direction perpendicular to the wing's leading edge. This is a rather different definition, because it allows for supersonic flow below the critical Mach number.
This second definition is used for the analysis of swept wings, because ultimately, we want the critical Mach number to correspond to a "critical regime" of flow, and not necessarily to the intrinsic properties of the flow. With swept wings, the critical regime is the point at which we form a normal shock over the wing, and a normal shock can only be formed if the flow component perpendicular to the leading edge is sonic/supersonic.
Therefore, we could say that it is almost "by definition" that sweeping a wing increases the critical Mach number. As the sweep angle increases, the perpendicular velocity component is initially scaled down by a factor of cos(Λ), and so a greater free-stream Mach is required for this component to become sonic as it accelerates over the wing.

Diagram from "Introduction to Transonic Aerodynamics" by Saeed Farokhi, Roelof Vos.
However, one could "force the point" out of pure curiosity, and ask: but does sweeping a wing increase the critical Mach number according to the standard definition of "critical Mach number"? In other words, does sweeping a wing delay the onset of supersonic flow altogether?
I think the answer is still "yes" for both scenarios A and B.
In scenario A, the effective airfoil (parallel to the free-steam flow) has a smaller thickness/chord ratio, so the flow is accelerated less, and the critical Mach increases (standard definition).
In scenario B, the critical Mach also increases slightly, but by a weaker effect. To quote from my previous attempt at an answer: Swept wing B has swept isobars, parallel to the leading edge. In other words, the pressure gradient will be perpendicular to the leading edge of the wing. An incident air particle will accelerate at an angle relative to its velocity, so its total speed will not increase as quickly compared to a straight wing (where the acceleration is aligned with the velocity). Therefore, a higher free-stream Mach is required to achieve sonic flow anywhere over the wing."

The resource you mentioned (Introduction to Transonic Aerodynamics, by Vos, R. and Farokhi,S.) defines the oblique wing and the sheared wing as in the image below:

For the oblique wing, you have the velocity decomposition due to the swept leading edge, meaning the velocity perpendicular to the leading edge will be $u_{oblique} = u_{\infty} \cdot \cos \Lambda$.
As the dependency between velocity and pressure is quadratic it leads to:
$$c_{l,oblique} = c_{l,\Lambda=0} \cos^2\Lambda \tag{8.7a}$$
For the sheared wing, you also have the velocity decomposition, as the  leading edge is swept. However, the flow going perpendicular to the leading edge is traversing an airfoil that has a shorter chord (compare the dotted airfoil with solid airfoil). This reduces its effective thickness $\frac{t}{c}$ and thereby the effective pressures and lift by a factor of $\cos \Lambda$. This leads to:
$$c_{l,sheared} = c_{l,\Lambda=0}\cos\Lambda \tag{8.10}$$
So for the oblique wing, the effect of sweeping is quadratic, whereas for the sheared wing it's not.
The effect on the lift will lead to a larger critical Mach number as explained here
To answer your question, both methods increase the critical Mach number but sweeping more than shearing.

In scenario B (shearing), by what mechanism does the coefficient of pressure drop as sweep angle increases? The airfoil sections parallel to the stream remain constant.

Do you have access to the book? It's explained there:
"For a swept wing the vorticity vector, γ is inclined at an angle π/2 − Λ. Therefore,
the two-dimensional lift vector, L, can be written as: $L'{\text{sheared}} = \rho{\infty} V_{\infty} \int_{0}^{c} \gamma(x) \cos{\Lambda} , dx$ "

@natanijelvasic, I was a bit confused by the different representations of sheared and oblique in your question and the book. I've now rewritten it in a way that seems more logical.

Yes, I think I agree with your answer. In the sheared case, we get cos^2 from the angled velocity, and a 1/cos from the shorter chord, and we arrive at cos for the 2D coefficient of lift. As for the total lift of the wing, the sheared wing is longer by 1/cos, so does that mean that we do not lose total lift in scenario B?

@natanijelvasic, the 1/cos does not come from the shorter chord, it comes from the shorter thickness/chord ratio. Because the airfoil get's stretched, it presents less curvature, and thus generates less lift. The total lift is just an integral of the airfoils, so either $c_{l,oblique} \cdot b$ or  $c_{l,sheared} \cdot b$

In the sheared case (B), if you define the airfoil as the section perpendicular to the LE (as the book does), then the airfoil's thickness/chord ratio is increased by a factor of 1/cos, right? It seems consistent with the maths. For the total lift of the sheared wing, we would then integrate this perpendicular airfoil across the wing length, which has increased in length by a factor of 1/cos. My conclusion is that the sheared wing generates the same lifting force as the straight wing.

@natanijelvasic, shearing a wing does not increase the total surface of a wing.

I agree, area is preserved. But its spanwise length is longer by a factor of 1/cos compared to the straight wing. If we consider the airfoil as defined in the book (perpendicular to LE), we would need to integrate it across the spanwise length, right?

When a plane encounters drag, the swept wing reduces surface area integration of airflow over the body. THus wing still generate lift but mitigate lots of air flow to stay stable and achieve high Mach. Changes in surface wing designs still permit sufficient airflows without compromising airs adherence to Grab adjacent parts of the wing surface. Cuts, notches, edges, furls and small grooves and ducts dot the wing surface of modern airplanes.
One best examples is F22

Which uses curves and slats and wing blending to pass air across much of it's surface but mitigates it's capacity to adhere and stick.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
ADIRU Mounting in Avionics Rack
If I understand correctly, navigational gyroscopes and accelerometers are located within the ADIRU boxes themselves. In order to initialise during aircraft startup, they must be mounted precisely along a aircraft's reference axes.
My question is this: since the gyroscopes/accelerometers are inside the ADIRU box, and the box is mounted on the avionics rack, does that imply that the avionics rack itself must be precisely aligned with the aircraft's axes? If not, are the ADIRUs mounted on special, "high precision" racks? And if not that, maybe a software algorithm can compensate for small physical deviations between the ADIRU box and the aircraft's reference axes?
Edit:
By the way, ADIRUs can initialise just fine if the ground is slanted (and it often is). Similarly, it is also fine if the aircraft is tilted in any direction relative to the ground (depending on the cargo/fuel loading). What I am talking about is strictly the physical alignment of the ADIRU relative to the aircraft axes.

What you have said in your question is correct.
Boresighting is the name of the process which you are referring. It involves a special jig you attach to the aircraft and plumb-bobs/lasers. This is a task performed by avionics maintenance engineers. I've not worked on cars, but I would imagine it's like doing an extremely accurate wheel alignment, but if you screw it up, the aircraft's primary source of navigation will be broken.
The ADIRU is likely to be mounted on a precisely aligned mounting plate on the avionics rack (although some modern ADIRUs don't require this plate to be aligned mechanically and will align and compensate themselves). You essentially adjust the level of the plate using shims which are special close tolerance washers of varying thickness. You use reference points on the aircraft to calculate any errors and gradually null any errors out as best you can. After this, some systems also have an electronic boresight compensation panel which can add or subtract any remaining error after the mechanical adjustment. This works by mixing the compensator signals with the gyros and accelerometer outputs. There is an adjustment for aircraft's three major axes (lateral, longitudinal, vertical). There are thumb switches to set these figures and if I recall correctly they go up in 0.5 minute increments. We didn't like there being any values larger than +/- 3.0 minutes. I'm faily certain that's the unit of measurement but you will have to give me a pass if I am wrong because it has been a while... Military aircraft may also have compensations for the gun, weapons RADAR, Head Up Display, etc. because you want to be able to shoot straight as well as fly straight. When a military pilot isn't very good at dropping dumb bombs, they like to blame the boresighting rather than admit they are the one with the issue. If the boresighting is an issue, it presents as a good tight grouping of dropped bombs but they are all 30m+ away from the bullseye. In many ways, boresighting isn't that dissimilar to zeroing a rifle scope.
The boresight process gets the ADIRU lined up accurately to the aircraft and the compensator figures are recorded in the maintenance documentation. It is possible to see if a pilot has overstressed the aircraft because the new figures could be way out from last time. Or maybe somebody accidently started undoing the ADIRU thumb screws on the mounting plate, bumping the system out of alignment. Look but don't touch! The boresight process isn't fun. Can take a whole shift sometimes and nobody is allowed to get on the aircraft except for the boresight crew. If somebody crosses the bollards and messes with the jet while you were on a break, start the whole process again. "But I just had to check the fuel total...", "NO TOUCHY!!!!!" SLAP
When you switch the ADIRU on, it goes through a process of alignment. The process usually takes about 8 minutes during which time you may not move the aircraft. It is common to inhibit the fine alignment from occurring if the park brake isn't set. The gyros will use the gravitational force and the 15 degree rotation of the Earth per hour to align. After this time, you can flick the switch to NAV mode and it will track where you are using dead reckoning.

Amazing - many interesting points here. Thank you!


text:
How to convince the FAA to cancel family member's medical certificate?
A close family member is over 70, early dementia, severe cardiovascular disease, frequently falls asleep at inappropriate times during the day, on 10+ prescriptions, overweight, high blood pressure. Has blacked out from cardio events and more. The individual has had several minor car accidents in the recent years. Despite these challenges, this person is extremely intelligent and still mentally high functioning.
This individual has reported to me that they have been awarded a medical certificate and will be pursuing a pilot's license. This person's plan is to fly solo frequently, including across the country and back every few weeks in single engine aircraft.
This is insane for the FAA to allow this person to fly. One possibility is that this super smart individual carefully selected a physician to examine them who doesn't know them well, and charmed their way through the exam. Another possibility is that this family member flat out lied their way to a medical certificate. I cannot imagine any physician signing their name to a recommendation for this person to fly.
I already tried persuading this individual not to fly, or to fly with instructors or younger healthier pilots. The person became extremely belligerent and angry for my expressing these concerns and stated they will be flying solo. Note, this person was previously licensed and totalled their prior aircraft in a non-injury wreck.
Note I am not a pilot and mostly ignorant of FAA procedures and regulations. I tried using the FAA hotline webform to alert the FAA they are making a dangerous mistake allowing this person to fly. I have not received a response. I don't know if the hotline responds to concerns like this. Is there anything else I can do?
P.S. I'm also concerned about this person driving...

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Keep in mind that the FAA must balance the investigation. They have a primary concern for safety, but they also get many false complaints and pilots have rights too.

The FAA will probably get around to reading your report, eventually. It's a large bureaucracy, and I wouldn't expect quick results.
If you want a quicker result (and you should, with what you are describing), I would try calling the nearest Flight Standards District Office to you, and perhaps the Regional Flight Surgeon overseeing your area. I'd just call both if I were you. Worst case scenario you waste a bit of time.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

@Chris has a great answer but to expand on that

The FAA has a hotline for reporting safety issues that you can try, you can start a filing here
If the individual is actually on 10 or more medications regularly there is a fair chance they are on a disqualifying medication that they did not inform the AME about. If you are positive they are on one of these medications I would bring it up in your report.
The FAA's guide for medical examiners is not a secret, you can find it here and it may contain information that can confirm or deny your assumptions.

There is one confusing aspect to the question you mention

Note, this person has flown before and totalled their prior aircraft in a non-injury wreck.

This implies they once had a private pilots license or at least a solo endorsement and flew without an instructor (who, all things considered, would have done everything in their power to prevent an accident).

I cannot imagine any physician signing their name to a recommendation for this person to fly.

Have you considered asking the individual to see their medical? First, second, and third class medical are printed and signed by the physician, you can should easily be able to find out who issued it.

Just for edification and completeness:

This individual has reported to me that they have been awarded a medical certificate and will be getting a pilot's license.

In reality this individual may be getting a pilots license that decision lies ultimately with the DPE no matter how much someone wants a pilots license.
Just to defend the individual a bit, if you do not know exactly what their blood pressure is (and if its controlled), the exact medications they take, and the actual nature of their conditions it can be hard to determine if they are indeed fit (or unfit) to fly. If they lied to the AME, thats a whole different can of worms.

EDIT
The new information added to the question changes the answer quite a bit and its worth updating. Pilots licenses in the US do not "expire" per-say. They can be revoked by the FAA but thats a somewhat rare occurrence and usually requires the individual to repeatedly break regulations or do something belligerent. Since you state that the individual "had" a pilots license, assuming it was not revoked by the FAA (possibly as a result of their accident) then the individual still has a pilots license. In order to fly again all they will need is a valid Medical and a valid Biennial Flight Review (1 hour of ground and 1 hour of air instruction required for all pilots every 2 years). These two things will make them legal to fly again, practical or not.
If the individual did indeed have the license revoked and are re-applying then the previous answer applies as they will need to fly a new check ride.
It is also possible to "lose your medical" which may render you unable to fly (operationally dependent here). In this case depending on why you lost it in the first place you can get it back or apply for a SODA and fly again.
Remember: Currency is not Proficiency

Thanks for feedback Dave, I clarified my question. "was previously licensed" and "will be pursuing their license". Seeing their medical is out of the question as the individual is upset already upset at me (per the conversation I mentioned in my question)

@SpeedytheFastest You might search on https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/ to see if they have a license already, and if they really do have a medical certificate already. Pilot certificates don't typically expire as much as just need a bare bones of training to keep current. Like 2 hours every 2 years. It would be much easier to "fly under the radar" if said family member already has a pilot certificate.

By the way, it's "biennial," not "biannual." Biannual means every six months. English is confusing.

"certificates" not "licenses". We can interpret your intent easily enough, but they are not the same thing, and for political/legal reasons it is best not to repeatedly reinforce incorrect information.
Certificates are verification of a set of properties, like training. Licenses are permission and primarily used to collect fees or restrict participation.

The correct spelling is per se (it's Latin).  It's too small for me to create an edit.

To sneak in a two- or three-letter edit, you can always somewhere else reword something without changing its meaning.

You wrote "This individual has reported to me that they have been awarded a medical certificate and will be pursuing a pilot's license."
In order to get a license, they will have to go through significant Ground School, take a difficult written test that involves memorization, following detailed instructions and critical thinking.
They will also have to spend enormous time with an instructor in close quarters.  Then, even after their instructor signs them off for various stages (first solo, cross country flight, Bravo Airspace, night flight), the school's Chief Pilot will review their work and confer with the instructor.
This entire process will probably take longer than the 2 years that the Medical Cert is good for.  So he will also need a renewed medical exam during that period.
Finally, they will ultimately be signed off for their Certificate by an FAA DPE.
I believe that if they really can pass ground school, written test, instructor signoff, Chief Pilot review, and the DPE exam, and likely a second medical, then maybe they really do deserve their license!!
The process is intensive, and I do believe it works.

Most well-qualified, healthy students pursuing a recreational cert (not career-oriented) will take between 1 and 3 years to finish their Private Pilot cert.
While it is technically possible to do it in about 2 to 3 months, that would involve committing to it as a full-time task: 10+ hours a day flying and studying books.
If your relative is as old and infirm as you say, I suggest letting them pursue the training, and even being supportive.  If you can meet the instructor, you can raise a concern with them in a supportive way.  Instead of saying, "You should deny grandpa a license." try saying, "I really care about grandpa. I'm always worried about him, and want to be sure he's fully prepared to fly on his own".
If he can get his license (which is not a "rubber stamp" process), more power to him!
Even if he cannot finish getting his license, at least he gets the opportunity to try, and some degree of flying experience in his final years.

This is a fine answer, and I agree with most of it, but please keep in mind the premises set in the question: the person is not healthy: obesity, cardivascular issues, potential dementia, narcolepsy, blackouts, several medictions and whatnot. A person such as this is not fit to fly.

@Jpe61:  That is the opinion of a non-medical, non-pilot family member.   I'm pointing out that if the individual can pass all the flight qualifications, medical, airmanship and ADM, under close observation by instructors for an estimated year or more than they actually are fit to fly despite what their non-expert nephew might believe.  Getting a PPL is NOT like getting a DL.  A DL only requires one brief test on a good day, with as many retakes as you want.  A PPL requires months of intensive training with no red-flags raised.

@Jpe61 we have 1 person's word for that, and that's the very person who wants to take a person's dream away. Obesity is NO factor for grounding someone, medication doesn't have to be (depends on the specific medication). Narcolepsy doesn't have to be either (I have narcolepsy, it wasn't a factor causing my grounding, ironically the medication I take for it was), etc. etc. etc.

@abelenky Someone who may lose consciousness at any moment due to a cardiac event is not fit to fly regardless of their skill or aptitude, and this is something that a CFI wouldn't even know about unless the student happened to faint while in the brief period before their first solo. If the relative did not disclose these events to their AME, they did not truly pass the medical to begin with. If they did, they surely have been evaluated and have an SI, and all is well. Otherwise, if they lied and don't have the sense to ground themself it only makes sense to force the issue.

@jwenting Odd that you listed all the issues that aren't specifically disqualifying but skipped the one that is.

@jwenting none of the mentioned troubles alone, maybe not even two or three together, but they do add up. Exception being If the person in question has diagnozed (early) stage dementia, that would be a definite disqualifier for medical. As for the "we only have 1 persons word..." argument: it simply does not stand. If we used that filter here, a subsantial portion of questions would have to be closed. The question poses us an anonymized dilemma, and we are to advice on that to the best of our ability. One more thing: there is no such thing as a universal right to become a pilot!

@abelenky fair enough, but I would reiterate that asker presents the case as all the symptoms/diseases being factual. That being said, +1 for your answer.

@Jpe61indeed, here it isn't necessarily a factor, but for the FAA it definitely is (or should be).

You stated in your question that

This individual has reported to me that they have been awarded a
medical certificate and will be pursuing a pilot's license.

It is most likely that, given all the problems this person has as per your statement, the pursuance of the pilot's licence will not be successful. Not knowing the exact class of the mentioned medical certificate it is hard to judge how rigorous of an examination this person has gone through, but it seems likely at least some foul play is involved.
Dementia, even in its early stages will present itself sooner rather than later during pilot training, leading to termination of training.
As for the reporting of this to FAA/other relevant agency: an impaired person operating an aircraft poses a general threat to the public. So at least in the case this person somehow manages to plow through flight training all the way to solo flight stage, even the "regular" police becomes a relevant authority. Mind you the mental status of this person should be documented by health authorities before pursuing this route.

Do not forget suspecting for potential (criminal) background – bribery. You wrote:

Has blacked out from cardio events and more. (...) This individual has reported to me that they have been awarded a medical certificate.

It is possible that your relative has bribed the physician. In such a case, there could be additional ways to challenge results of med exams. This actually opens you additional legal options to try and increase your chances to validate your concerns. You did not state your country, but check which organization oversights the work of physicians and raise a concern with them. In Europe where I live, even with less severe diagnoses you will never get medical approval for flying a plane (not even driving a bus... absolutely not mentioning vehicles like locomotives).
Also continue closely watching any results of future exams of this relative. Challenging any similar successful passes of future medical exams can help you achieve uncovering his true health capabilities which could also lead to revocation of his driver license.
Do challenge the last medical exam just when next incident happens, where temporary health disability can play its role – should it be a minor car damage due to temporary loss of driver's awareness of his surroundings. You can bring it as a "new incident" which, "as you suspect", can have impact on existing medical clearances of this person.

I would like to know what negative earned the downvotes. Bribery is common everywhere in the world and in this case it is one of possible causes. And for example, according to Corruption Perception Index, USA is not higher than on 24th position in the list of world countries, far behind the Western Europe. Bribery there is a likely thing. Pretending that corruption is non-existing problem actually helps in its growth. It may be not reasonable to skip (and waste) an opportunity to investigate in case where it did likely happen.

Just lying to a new doctor seems a lot easier & cheaper than bribery... but true either one isn't impossible. Although, your CPI index only measures "their perceived levels of public sector corruption" not private doctors who could personally get in a LOT of trouble. Also, I'm wondering how getting medical permission to drive a bus is easier to get than flying a single or ultralight aircraft? The potential for damage & loss of life seems exponentially higher for a loaded bus on the ground. Then again, you can always stop a bus in a few seconds if you feel ill, landing (safely) takes longer.

@Xen2050 You don't need medical permission for flying an ultralight aircraft, and you can fly a light sport aircraft with just a driver's license.


text:
Who inspects commercial aircraft seats for defects (and when)?
Do inspections of aircraft seats occur only after passenger complaints, or do the major carriers conduct their own inspections at regular intervals?

Apart from what ymb1 and Zach Lipton mentioned, the passenger and flight crew seats are thoroughly inspected during the scheduled maintenance of the aircraft, in which the aircraft can be grounded for several days up to some weeks. Depending on how extensive is the maintenance check, the following items can also be inspected amongst others:

Condition of seat floor attachment fittings for tightness.
Reclining function, except those before and after the emergency exits (these must not recline at all).z
Removal of the seat cushions in order to inspect the seat structure.
Periodic replacement of all seat covers (washed or new).
Seat belts for condition, operation and proper attachment to the seat.
Life vests for presence, condition and expiration date.

Sometimes, when the repair is beyond the capability or the approval of the maintenance center it can be sent to a specialized seat overhauling center.
For more information and fun you can check the British Airways B747 D-check video

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How do I differentiate between different types of installed wire lock/safety wire on planes?
Common wire-locking/wire safe-tying materials used in aviation include copper, stainless steel, Monel and Inconel.
Is there any way one can differentiate an installed stainless steel one from an installed Monel or Inconel one? Copper can be differentiated from the rest by its colour.

Monel is more expensive than stainless steel so it's use is limited to where it is an advantage, mainly in high temperature applications such as securing engine accessories, piping etc.  If the locking application is not in a high temperature, high humidity, high oxidisation area, then it's probably stainless steel.
There are chemical tests you can do on small samples using acids and reagents but you asked about an installed lock. The only way I know for testing an installed lock is to  polish it. Monel is duller than stainless steel and does not polish to a shine so  the quick way to tell is to try to polish a piece of it with a cloth.  If it shines up, it's stainless steel.  If it doesn't, it's monel.


text:
Does lift requirements change as fuel is burned? If so, how?
so when an aircraft flies in cruise, it burns weight and so what impact does this have in lift requirements?
Would there be a need to also deflect flaps to stay in cruise as fuel is burned?
— I’m aware there is a similar question but it didn’t answer my question, it was asking about how pilots react to this, I’m more interested in the aerodynamics side of it

so when an aircraft flies in cruise, it burns weight and so what impact does this have in lift requirements?

In straight and level flight, total lift equals total weight.  As the fuel burns, two things can happen: the balance of the aircraft shifts as weight is taken from one part, and the total weight of the aircraft decreases.
In many planes, the change of balance dominates and you need to correct for that with some frequency, so you'd never notice the weight change.
If your plane is trimmed for straight and level flight and the balance doesn't shift, you might find that it will start to climb a bit as fuel burns off.  If so, you could reduce power slightly to maintain level flight.
For a particular airplane, he lighter it is, the less power will be required to fly at a given altitude and speed.

Would there be a need to also deflect flaps to stay in cruise as fuel is burned?

Flaps are not needed or used in cruise.  The cruising airplane is controlled through power settings and elevator/trim position.

Hi so, the elevators are the flaps at the end right? What would they do with them, so let’s say weight decreased, do they put them up or down please?

"Flaps" have a specific meaning  in airplanes. They are only one particular control surface.  Calling the elevator "flaps at the end" would be confusing.  Those tutorials mentioned in the comments would be a good starting point for some of the basics.

Pitch trim creates a force balance that drives the aircraft to seek a specific angle of attack. But as weight is reduced, less angle of attack (AOA) is required for level flight.
So, as fuel is burned, with the airplane trimmed to maintain, say, a 4 degree angle of attack, static stability forces will tend to maintain that angle of attack. The reduction in weight means the lift generated at that AOA is excessive, and the plane will climb as it maintains its trimmed AOA.
To compensate, you have to trim to a lower AOA to regain the original lift/gravity equilibrium.
Retrimming to a lower angle of attack reduces drag, and so you also have to reduce thrust/power to keep the original speed.
What happens in practical terms is, you fly along, and we'll say you're hand flying and you have it trimmed hands off. The pitch attitude shows 4 deg nose up. After a little while you'll notice the plane starting to creep into a climb. You'll pitch the nose down slightly, to a slightly lower pitch attitude, say, 3.8 deg. If you do nothing else, the speed will start to creep up, so at the same time you'll reduce thrust a tiny amount to keep the speed constant.
If you're on an autopilot without autothrottle, you'll be observing and noticing that the airplane very gradually noses down slightly over time as the autopilot retrims to compensate for the weight reduction, and while that's happening you'll be easing the thrust back in tiny adjustments to keep the speed bug at the target IAS or Mach#. Or if there's an autothrottle system, you just sit and watch twiddling your thumbs.
From start to finish, depending on how much all that fuel weighed, you might find that the pitch attitude is maybe a degree lower at the end of the cruise than it was as the start, and thrust is a couple of percent lower as well, to maintain the same constant altitude and speed.
Flaps are not used because they are only for low speed use to reduce minimum flying speeds. Deploying even small angles of flap at cruise speed (airplanes generally aren't structurally designed to operate at cruise with flaps extended anyway) you end up with too much lift and a lot more drag, so efficiency goes to heck; there's no point.

What does airplane trimmed mean please? And what’s pitch please?

@MintyPythonn They are elementary physical concepts without which not much meaningful discussion about control of an airplane can be had. I recommend you to read the excellent online book See How It Flies by John S. Denker. These terms are discussed in chapter 2, but to get good grasp on the physics of fixed-wing flight I recommend you read at least the first 10 chapters.


text:
Why do heli PC2 operations require highest obstacle clearance
In designing a helipad I notice that the Australian requirements (AC139.R-01) for obstacle clear gradients specify that the slope category (12.5% slope) generally applies to PC2 operations, whereas categories A (4.5% slope) and B (8% slope) are said to generally apply to PC1 and PC3 operations respectively:

The slope design categories in Table 2 may not be restricted to a
specific performance class of operations and may be applicable to more
than one performance class of operation. The slope design categories
depicted in Table 2 represent minimum design slope angles and not
operational slopes. Slope category "A" generally corresponds with
helicopters operated in performance class 1; slope category "B"
generally corresponds with helicopters operated in performance class
3; and slope category "C" generally corresponds with helicopters
operated in perfromance class 2. Consultation with helicopter
operators will help to determine the appropriate slope category to
apply according to the heliport environment and the most critical
helicopter type for which the heliport is intended.

This is in contrast with ICAO's notes in Doc 9261, which explain category A as applying to PC1 operations with one engine inoperative, and Cat B and C applying to different scenarios where All Engines Operating (AEO) is assumed.
Is there a logical explanation as to why the Australian rules might consider categories B and C to  be applicable to PC3 and PC2 respectively? As a former CPL-H myself I just can't see the reasoning behind it.


text:
What does AOE on the sectional chart mean?
What does the AOE notation on the sectional stand for? This appears at the bottom of the information for an airport as the final line.

It stands for "Airport Of Entry" (see VFR Terms) In other words there are customs facilities there.

All civil, private aircraft entering the U.S. must first land at an
  airport of entry before continuing to their destinations, unless other
  arrangements are made with U.S. CBP. Advance notification must be
  provided electronically to CBP by means of the eAPIS. See the APIS
  section for more information.
  (source)

To my knowledge this is also common for international operations outside of the US/FAA jurisdiction although im not sure how its marked on various maps elsewhere.


text:
Does currency in one C172 model apply to other models?
If I am current on one model of a Cessna 172, am I also legally meeting the currency requirements for a different version of the same aircraft model? For example, if I have many hours in a Cessna 172M, but have lately been flying a Cessna 172S, would I also be able to take passengers in the 172M?
This could be the case for a flying club that has many different versions of the same aircraft model. Perhaps on a nice day of flying the aircraft that you have been flying more recently has already been booked. You would still like to perform the flight with a different aircraft also offered by the club. However, it has been more than 3 months since you have last flown that specific aircraft.

Which country's regulations are you asking about?

You've accepted the answer about FAA regulations, so I've added that tag to your question. When you ask a question about regulations, please always tell us which country or regulator you're asking about.

If you're referring to the United States, then yes, you would be current.
(Emphasis mine)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may
  act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an
  aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless
  that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within
  the preceding 90 days, and -
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
  and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft
  of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required),
  and, if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the
  takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an
  airplane with a tailwheel.

A Cessna 172 is not an aircraft that you need to be type-rated for and thus, so long as you have met the requirements for number of take off and landings within the required 90 days, then you are considered "Current". You could even take this a step further: You could fly Cessna 172's and get into a Piper Cherokee and be considered "Current".
Remember, Currency is not Proficiency.
Currency is explained here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.57

@RyanGriffith is correct on the legal standpoint however its worth elaborating on your other point a bit

This could be the case for a flying club that has many different
  versions of the same aircraft model. Perhaps on a nice day of flying
  the aircraft that you have been flying more recently has already been
  booked. You would still like to perform the flight with a different
  aircraft also offered by the club. However, it has been more than 3
  months since you have last flown that specific aircraft.

Most flying clubs, FBO's and anywhere else you may rent an aircraft from can impose other currency requirements and in many cases their insurance may require it. So while you may be legal to fly an aircraft that does not mean you always can, and in some cases if you do it may not mean the insurance will cover it should something go wrong. For example the flight school I fly out of has both fuel injected and carbureted 172's if you are checked out in the fuel injected one you are allowed to fly the carb'ed one but not the other way around. They also have similar requirements for their Cherokee's where you can fly anything with less HP than what you have been checked out in, for example I am checked out in their archer so I can fly that as well as their 161 warrior.
So in the specific case you mention for a flight club you should further confirm what their operating rules are.

Great addition to the answer!

The club I learned to fly in imposed currency by type if you had less than 200 hours. And the C-172 currency (M thru P models) did not include the lone C-172F.  It had the Continental 0-300 engine, a non-standard (pre 6-pack) panel with ASI in MPH, not Knots. It required a separate check ride and currency.


text:
Why did two of the development Concordes have red cabin doors?

The second British Concorde 101 G-AXDN at the 1974 Farnborough Airshow
(Photo by: Richard Vandervord source: www.airliners.net via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)
Three of the six development Concordes were built by the French, #1, #4, and #5. Three were built by the British, #2, #3, and #6. The #2 and #3 British planes were Concorde 002 G-BSST, and Concorde 101 G-AXDN which is famous for being the fastest Concorde ever flown. These were the first two British Concordes ever built.
The middle cabin doors on each side of G-BSST and G-AXDN were both painted red, the same color as the stripe that runs the length of the planes. This is easily seen in any color photos of these two planes. As far as I can tell these are the only two Concordes that ever had red cabin doors.
One possibility is that this was some type of an indicator to fire rescue personnel. But if so why only these two doors, and why only these two planes? And is it just a coincidence that both of the planes with red doors were British built? Was it just an aesthetic to make these two early test planes easily identifiable?
Another possible clue is that all three of the British development planes have another distinguishing feature that the three French development planes do not have, which is some black squares in various parts of the planes, for example near the nose of G-AXDN. My guess is that these black squares are for photographic tracking, similar to the black stripes and blocks on the Saturn V rocket which were used to measure the roll rate during launch. Perhaps the red doors on G-BSST and G-AXDN served a similar purpose in test photography, although the fact that they are red seems to make this possibility less likely.

There are many particularities listed in this document in French, o/w the red doors and the tracking marks, the exhaust eyelids, opaque nose, etc, found on prototypes and development/test versions by c/n or tail number.

@mins - The document mentions the red doors on G-AXDN but no explanation is given, “On many photos the emergency doors located in the center of the fuselage are red on a white background”. This remark implies that G-AXDN did not always have red doors, but the only photos that I have found of it without red doors were photos taken at or shortly after rollout. And I have not found any photos of G-BSST without red doors. The document also mentions the black squares, “bears telemetry aid markings on the front, a kind of checkerboard with 2 black tiles”. Presumably this refers to ground tracking.

The mark seems to be for take-off/landing performance evaluation by a camera on the ground (on the left side only).

@mins - That could be although that photo of G-BSST was taken on its maiden flight in 1969 before the black squares (and red doors) were added. The checkerboard markings are quite visible in photos of the three British development planes. The black squares on G-AXDN are on both sides of the nose and seem to be oriented towards the ground so I suspect they were for inflight ground tracking. G-BSST has black squares over the right wing not visible to ground cameras so maybe used for takeoff and landing tracking. But G-BSST also had squares under the nose. G-BDDG has squares over the left wing.

G-AXDN nose G-BSST wing G-BSST under nose G-BDDG wing

@mins I've zoomed in to 260% on that image and I'm not sure which marks you're talking about. I only see the faintest of a "U" shaped line just ahead of the stripe - this looks like it could be the main cabin door, but I'm not sure. Is this what you're talking about? If not, could you please identify what particular mark you're referring to.

@FreeMan: If you're talking about this image, then there is no mark. I was referring to the mark in the question. But the image I posted shows the cine-theodolite used to track aircraft.

Yes, I was talking about the touch down image. I see from "the mark in the question" that what I saw in touch down is the outline of the door. I presume the cine-theodolite is the checkerboard pattern, but I'm not seeing that in touch down. (Unless it's the black mark on the belly, just behind the main cabin door, which I just noticed.)

@FreeMan: My assumption is the cine-theodolite (ground camera) tracked the checkerboard pattern to determine the motion of the plane. Unfortunately I've not enough details, I don't know if this was used by the English or the French engineers, or both. Possibly only the BAC (UK) planes had a checkerboard (I've not checked).

@mins – I agree the checkerboards were likely for measuring motion. Similar patterns were used on rockets to measure roll rates and other attitude changes. The checkerboards over the wings were probably not used for landing but for aerial filming, for the same purpose to measure roll rate and attitude changes. Aerial photography might seem unstable but probably no more than ground based cinetheodolite tracking cameras which although of course very steady, they were manually operated back then, and shooting from far away. Airborne had the advantage of being close for more precise measurements.

Some additional evidence about the red doors. Close up photos of G-BSST reveal that it had four additional “exits” on each side with a marked outline and the words “Cut Here In Emergency” below them. Clearly intended for fire rescue personnel. Interestingly two of the eight cutouts are located immediately adjacent to the red emergency exits. On the right side of G-BSST the red overwing exit appears to be the only functioning exit door on that side. On the left side there is the main cabin door along with the red overwing exit and four cutouts. And there was an emergency exit hatch in the tail.

However any red door theories based on the G-BSST door situation don’t quite hold up when looking at the next development plane G-AXDN. It has similar cutout outlines but without the “Cut Here In Emergency” message. The red overwing exit doors on G-AXDN are nearly full size doors, whereas G-BSST had small overwing exits. G-AXDN also had a functioning cabin door on the right rear. And it had an additional non-red emergency exit over the right wing, and two non-red emergency exits on the left side. So it’s still not quite clear why one emergency exit on each side of the plane is painted red.

G-BSST Cut Here In Emergency G-BSST cutout next to small red door G-BSST right front door inoperable G-AXDN left side doors

I have no additional clue. Two elements to consider: These aircraft had no commercial passengers, exits were for engineers. Most of the test flights were likely conducted over water, overwing exits are the one used.

@mins – The emergency exits on test flights would have been used in a crash landing, fire, runway excursion, or if it survived water impact. My guess is they would have used the wing exits so they could drop down from the wingtips which were lower to the ground, or on F-WTSS and G-BSST from the hatch in the tail, but it's unclear if those had stairs. Production Concordes had escape slides and rafts. The first four test planes had escape hatches at the front and mid section allowing the pilots and test engineers to bail out even at supersonic speeds after donning pressure suits and parachutes.

After examining the exits on the two planes I have come up with a theory. Possibly the red doors are the only emergency exits that can be opened from the outside. I can see some markings on the red doors that could indicate some type of handle or release, whereas I don't see anything similar on the other emergency exits. Of course the main cabin door could be opened from the outside, but that would already be obvious to rescue personnel. To help confirm this theory it would help to find some close up photos of the exit doors on these two planes, but so far I have not been able to locate any.


text:
What requirements do A&Ps (AMT) have to work on avionics?
Is there any additional requirement for A&Ps to work on avionics or is that even a totally different license?
I just wonder why only a few A&Ps I met, also do avionics.

An A&P may install avionics per an STC or replace a component, but they may not "repair" avionics in the general sense (solder the circuit board). FAR 65.81 specifically prohibits the mechanic from performing “any repair to, or alteration of, instruments.” It takes a FAA Part 145 certified repair station to work on instruments or avionics.  (Remember that autopilots and other “electronic devices for automatically controlling an aircraft in flight”are instruments by definition.) Appendix A to Part 43 defines the calibration and repair of instruments (including autopilots) as an appliance major repair.
Theoretically an A&P could do repairs if he met all requirements for a part 145 repair station but it is highly unlikely it would ever happen.
The repair station or A&P may re-install the part, fill out the maintenance log, and return the aircraft to service. If the A&P re-installs the unit, the reg's say he must have up to date installation manuals, and it specifically requires that “if special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the administrator” to verify system performance (Section 43.13 (a)).
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Telecommunication Commission, Part 87—Aviation Services, states that a commercial radio operator license is required to repair and maintain all aircraft stations and aeronautical ground stations (including hand-carried portable units) used to communicate with aircraft.
In the United States, neither the FAA or FCC provide a "Avionics Technician" license or equivalent as the military or other parts of the world do. No certification or license is needed to work for a "repair station".
The FAA is always revising rules and regulations such as promoting ADS-B and   no-longer requiring a STC to promote safety.

Your statement, "No certification or license is needed to work for a "repair station"." is correct only in that a non-certificated worker can perform work under the supervision of someone who is certificated.  FAR 145.153 requires each supervisor to have a mechanic or repairman certificate. The same applies (FAR 145.147) to any one authorized to approve an article for return to service. In Repair Stations I've worked with, the majority of the techs held repairman certificates.

There are generally no extra required licenses, but some guys do have their FCC license.
The reason many A&P’s don’t touch avionics is because it’s a different thought process, and is not usually covered in anyone’s A&P schools. Most experience and training in the subject comes from the military, which not everyone has experience with. It is more firmly rooted in electronic principles and theories and many people are kind of scared of it, to be perfectly honest.
It’s also probably one of the more ever-changing fields in aviation. Flight controls haven’t changed in about 100 years (the general principle, that is), but avionics moves at a relatively quicker rate.


text:
What is the best option when the headwind exceeds the maximum airspeed?
In a previous question, Mongo described flying his Cessna with a negative ground speed in a head wind.  In this situation, what is the correct thing for a pilot to do, if there is nowhere to land downwind and upwind ground speed is negative?  Other answers on that page show that, for very light aircraft, descending will not always get you to a low enough wind speed that you can fly forwards.

"correct" has no meaning in this situation.  And it would be a very contrived situation for there to truly be no possible landing place anywhere downwind.  Oh well, at least the crash will occur at a low groundspeed.

@quietflyer I reworded a bit.  It's not unusual for downwind to be ocean.

Seems to me the question could be asking about anything from how to predict whether surface winds will increase or decrease, to who to talk to on the radio for advice,to how to maximize endurance while waiting for wind to change, to how to execute a forced landing in adverse conditions-- too broad.  Also, to me " correct" implies the right answer to a test or an action that is required by some regulation which doesn't really seem to apply here.

I would substitute "best" for "correct" but it still seems to me that the question would still be too broad.  Maybe others will feel differently and provide useful answers.

Before even taking off, a pilot is required to get a weather briefing, including winds.
 Wind speeds are usually predictable and well known.  If a pilot was flying against strong headwinds, with no good landing alternate, he screwed up his flight planning before he even started the engine.  A headwind doesn't even have to be strong enough for negative GS, just strong enough to cause concern.
Winds vary by altitude in both strength and direction.  If a pilot does find himself in such a situation, changing altitude by a few thousand feet, higher or lower, can very likely change both the wind direction and speed to something that is manageable.

This is one of the rare situations where the right answer is "don't have that problem."  This can happen with mountain pass winds, and is one of the reasons mountain flying is so hazardous.

This question is actually applicable to a power off emergency gliding situation, where your best option may be behind you.
The way the question is worded (and one of the reasons light GA air craft are generally designed with one wing and a bit more speed than old time Jennys) is that progress upwind will drain your energy source (be it altitude or fuel) much faster than downwind (note going downwind does not necessarily mean LANDING downwind).
Nor is this question in the realm of the impossible, as I once witnessed a light GA (152 or 172) on final inching into a 35 knot headwind in Armarillo, Texas one fine day (windmills are doing great out there).
So, going upwind is out.  On your way upwind, always try to pick out possible landing sites like open fields or interstate highways.  If there is no where to land from where you came from, that would be a poor trip plan.
Changing altitude may be an option, though going lower may be more turbulent.  Abort ASAP if weather is marginal.

If you are flying into a headwind, that means that there is an area of High pressure to your right. Frequently, as you leave move further away from the low pressure area, the winds will diminish. This isn't always the case, but it is the PICs responsibility to check weather conditions along the route and the routes to any alternate destinations.

oops. that was a typo. The High would be on your left

Aren't winds weakest in the middle of a low or in a middle of a high, and strongest some distance away from the middle of each?  I'm not sure this answer is really right, or at least I think there could be some cases where going toward the high might bring you closer to the zone of strong winds between the low and the high.  Maybe though the answer has more truth as a general rule of thumb than I'm realizing.

Anyway, it's certainly more "outside the box" than some of the other answers which is nice.

You can easily fix that typo and then delete the related comment; welcome to ASE.

Welcome to aviation.SE! You might also want to mention that the direction of the high pressure area depends on which hemisphere you're in. Not everyone is in the northern hemisphere :-)


text:
Aerofoil selection for a Horizontal turbine
I'm currently having a bit of an issue selecting the type of aerofoil I would want to use in my ridge mounted wind turbine honours project. I want to select a high lift generating aerofoil at low speeds, but I am overwhelmed with the options.
The blade will be fixed and have no moving flaps, the wind speeds will be controlled with a variable stator upstream of the blades in order to provide a wind speed as close as possible to the optimal speed for maximum lift generation which would allow for a higher rpm and thus more power generation.
I know the parameters of the wind tunnel I will be testing in and the wind speeds I could encounter in real world applications. Through my research it seems that liebeck aerofoils are the way to go, if I'm right which one? If I'm wrong, what questions should I be asking and what should I be doing differently?
Are there any online sources I should read through before I make my choice or should i just pick a standard blade with a high CL/CD? I would have liked to have two choices in order to evaluate which would be the preferred design.
In real world application wind speeds will range from 1 m/s to 25 m/s. Therefore, I will replicate these speeds in the wind tunnel.

An essential information is missing: At which Reynolds number (speed and size are the important parameters here) will the airfoil be operated?

Does this answer your question? airfoil choice for wind turbine

You need to consider your manufacturing technique.  Many of the extreme high lift airfoils end up with a concave bottom surface.  This can be a challenge for several manufacturing techniques.
You need to size your blades to achieve high Cl/Cd at your expected operating point -- it isn't enough to have a high max L/D, you have to be able to achieve it.

@PeterKämpf ive added the wind speeds expected with the Reynolds numbers being quite low.

@sophit The qblade is quite interesting thank you it definitley helped.

@RobMcDonald I will be 3D printing the design and applying epoxy over the surface for a smooth finish, I don't think the manufacturing process is too much of an issue in that regard as I have the universities resources at my disposal

If the Reynolds number is going to be so small I wouldn't care of the surface finish, as taught by the golf ball

@sophit The golf ball analogy is the wrong one.  The dimples on the golf ball force turbulent flow -- which delays separation and reduces drag on a sphere.  An airfoil is a streamlined shape designed to avoid separation anyway.  At low Re, you may be able to have laminar flow, which would have lower skin friction drag than by forcing turbulence.  Surface finish is important.

@RobMcDonald: at those low Re numbers, the laminar boundary layer is so sensitive that, as soon as the pressure starts to recover over the rear part of the airfoil, it separates from the surface making the rear part of the airfoil virtually stall and causing a big increase in pressure drag. So, depending on the needs, sometimes it's better to trade skin friction with pressure drag i.e. sometimes it's better to trip a earlier turbulent boundary layer (increasing the skin friction) but retarding the stall on the rear part (decreasing even more the pressure drag)...

... so what you state is correct for flat plates and airfoils at very low AoA, but as soon as the AoA increases then the rise in pressure drag might not be acceptable anymore and tripping the change from laminar to turbulent boundary layer might actually decrease the total drag. This trick is widely used in model aircrafts.

@sophit  Fair enough -- point is, it comes down to some details.  We don't know the Reynolds number for sure.  He states the expected airspeeds, but we don't know the chord.  He plans on matching speed in the tunnel, but would probably be better off running the tunnel fast (by the ratio of chords) to match the Reynolds number.  He is far from any compressibility effects.

@RobMcDonald: agreed

@RobMcDonald The golf ball is indeed misleading, and you are right insofar that roughness is only needed along a chord line to trip the boundary layer. But sophit is correct, at low Re you need to force the turbulent transition shortly after the pressure rises again. On the golf ball you don't know the flow direction, so you put dimples all over it. On the airfoil you do know it, so roughness is only needed along one carefully selected line.

Given the low end of your very wide speed range, your airfoil should have very low thickness and high camber, similar to a bird wing's airfoil.
Thickness helps when a wide range of angle of attack needs to be tolerated and of course when structural strength is required.
The SG6043 in the answer linked to by @sophit checks those marks. The S807 also mentioned is a root airfoil for the blade of a wind turbine and has its high thickness for structural reasons.


text:
Could what happened to Yeti Airlines Flight 691 happen on an Airbus or Boeing?
The Yeti Airlines crash involved an ATR 72 and was likely due to pilot error - a stall resulting in an incipient spin.
Would this accident be more avoidable on say a Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691

The crash of Yeti Airlines Flight 691 on 15 January 2023 was caused by the PM inadvertently moving the propeller condition controls to the feathered position while attempting to set the flaps lever to 30 degrees. Although the PM noticed within half a minute that he had not moved the flaps lever, and corrected this error, he did not notice that he had moved the propeller condition controls instead, and left that part of his error uncorrected.
As the flight crew attempted to continue the landing with no power available, the aircraft stalled while in a left turn at approx. 700 feet altitude.
Attempting to duplicate this crash scenario with a  Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320 would be impossible as these aircraft types are not fitted with a propeller condition control. Because they are not fitted with propellers. They are jets.

I suppose a follow-up question would be "What would happen if a pilot inadvertently set power to idle while while on approach in a 737 or an A320?" I imagine the answer is "The plane would yell at you until you fixed it."

Thanks. Are these aircraft even able to stall and descend into an incipient spin? Or are there stabilizing systems in place?

@Chris Well also just that moving the throttles forward will fix that problem. Part of the issue here is that advancing the throttle doesn't help when the propeller is feathered.

@Sam Yes, it is possible. There is envelope protection that helps avoid a stall, but it is disabled under certain circumstances or can be disabled by the pilots. This would be a good question to ask on its own if you want a detailed answer (though I would search for duplicates first).

@Chris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951


text:
How would the shock-ramjet engine work?
I discovered a new theoretical engine called the shock-ramjet (schramjet) and I was wondering, how would it work exactly? I've read that its a high-speed engine that could be used around Mach 10, but I can't figure out how it actually works. My idea is that the engine uses the shockwave to compress the air for combustion later, but by reading some more I found out this wasn't correct at all. Can anyone explain it more fully?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shcramjet

The link explains it, you need to be more specific with your question.

My idea of how it works is that a ram at the beginning uses the shockwave to compress the air for combustion

Scramjet is the portmanteau of supersonic ram jet. A normal ramjet tries to decelerate the air flowing through it to almost a standstill in order to allow combustion within a limited length. However, deceleration causes heating, and at flight speeds above Mach 5 the deceleration of air to subsonic speed would heat the air so much that combustion would become inefficient, and heat loads would exceed any materials known to man.
In order to reduce heating, the air is delelerated less so combustion has to happen at still supersonic flow speed. In order to happen inside the engine, this needs a fuel with very high flame speed, and the best fuel for this is hydrogen.
A variation is the shcramjet (now the sh part stands for shock and the following c for combustion) where the heat of an oblique shock is used to ignite the fuel-air mixture. Here, fuel is injected into the intake stream so it can use the length of the intake for mixing with the air and burns after the last compression shock. The longer mixing length allows for a wider variety of fuels such as methane besides only hydrogen in a scramjet. Since the flow speed past an oblique shock is still supersonic, this is still in principle a scramjet, but it differs from the classical scramjet in the design of the combustion area.
Now much depends how close to the shock the combustion happens since it can influence the shock. In pulse detonation engines the deflagration of regular combustors is replaced by a detonation of the fuel-air mixture which results in a much faster reaction. This releases the chemical energy along a much smaller flow path, making the reaction more efficient for propulsion.
A deflagration is a subsonic explosion where the shock wave travels ahead of the flame front, with significant separation between the two. A detonation is a supersonic form of combustion where the shockwave and flame propagate as a coupled pair, augmenting the pressure significantly in comparison to deflagrations.
The detonation is a discontinuous process because it changes the flow pattern momentarily. In consequence, a pulse detonation engine uses a cyclic process while a scramjet or a shcramjet with combustion downstream of the shock employ a continuous process.

@ZeissIkon I should have finished the answer before posting but was too tired yesterday.

Much better when it's all there downvote replaced with upvote.  Carry on.  ;)


text:
How was the Douglas DC-6 pressurized?
It's my understanding that modern airliners are pressurized using bleed air from the compressor stage. But how did piston-engined aircraft like the DC-6 get pressurized? I couldn't find any answers anywhere on the internet and I don't know how the pressurization worked

As usual: ram-air ingested via scoop $\rightarrow$ compressor driven by the engine $\rightarrow$ heat exchanger $\rightarrow$ supply ducts $\rightarrow$ air outlets. But hopefully someone find some more precise information.

Also see this answer

The DC-6 was equipped with two "cabin superchargers." A supercharger is an air compressor that is driven by the engine's crankshaft. A typical use of superchargers is to provide compressed air to the engine's intake to provide greater engine power, but these "cabin superchargers" instead fed into the cabin to provide the necessary air to maintain the cabin pressure.
A cabin heater provides hot air if needed, some of the air from the superchargers is routed to an "aftercooler" to cool it down, and some small amount of cold air is available from a "cooling turbine." These different sources of air can be mixed together to provide a comfortable cabin temperature.


text:
Camber Line equation and Thickness Distribution equation
I'm a high school student, not majoring in aerodynamics, so I'm struggling to understand the distinction between the Camber Line and Thickness Distribution equations. As I understand it, the Camber Line equations describe the curved line representing the average contour or curvature of both the upper and lower surfaces, while the Thickness Distribution equation provides the thickness of the airfoil at a specific point.
When I input these equations into Desmos, it generates the following image (for NACA 2412). My aim is to calculate the cross-sectional area. However, I'm concerned that integrating the Thickness Distribution equation might yield the cross-sectional area of a symmetric airfoil. The second image shows the upper part of the airfoil as curved and the lower part as flat. Since NACA 2412 isn't a symmetrical airfoil, how can I find its cross-sectional area. Could you explain me this difference.

It seems that you generally have the right idea.  You're doing great.  One comprehensive and relatively modern reference on this subject is NASA TM 4741.  You should check it out if you don't already have it.
The details of the NACA airfoil definition say that the thickness is measured perpendicular to the camber line.  So we can't just add and subtract half of the thickness to the camber line equation in order to get the upper and lower surfaces.  This will be close, but not quite correct.
Instead, we have to calculate the slope of the camber line and use that to direct the thickness offset.  This will require taking the derivative of the camber line.
You said you're in high school, so you may or may not be in the middle of Calculus right now.  If you haven't gotten there, you should be able to go talk with a Calculus teacher and get some help.  If you're in Calculus now, you should be able to handle these derivatives.  Note that the camber line equations are often piecewise -- one equation for the front of the airfoil and another equation for the back.
Unfortunately, the equations in the paper aren't numbered, so referring to them is a little cumbersome.  The equations to reconstruct the airfoil are the first two equations on page 11 of the paper.
$\left(\frac{x}{c}\right)_u = \left(\frac{x}{c}\right)-\left(\frac{y}{c}\right)_t\ sin\left( \delta \right)$
$\left(\frac{y}{c}\right)_u = \left(\frac{y}{c}\right)_{cam}+\left(\frac{y}{c}\right)_t\ cos\left( \delta \right)$
Where you flip the sign on the RHS to get the lower surfaces.
They also appear on page 113 of Theory of Wing Sections by Abbott and von Doenhoff in slightly different notation which I find a bit more compact.
$x_u = x-y_t\ sin\left( \theta \right)$
$y_u = y_c+y_t\ cos\left( \theta \right)$
$x_l = x+y_t\ sin\left( \theta \right)$
$y_l = y_c-y_t\ cos\left( \theta \right)$
where
$\theta = atan \left(\frac{dy_c}{dx_c} \right)$
Despite the notation differences, $\delta = \theta$.
This should get you moving in the right direction, let us know how it turns out.
Part of me thinks the area of the cambered airfoil should be exactly the same as the un-cambered one (even after all this work) -- but part of me leaves room for them to be slightly different.

So, if I take the derivative of the camber line equation for as many points as I can and enter the obtained  values into the equation, can I get the equations of the upper and lower surface?

If you take the derivative of the camber line equation, you'll have it at 'all' points -- until you plug in a value of theta, then you have it at one point.  So, you should be able to form analytical (but cumbersome) formulas for the top and bottom curves -- they will be piecewise, from the LE to the point of maximum camber, then from there to the TE.


text:
How is a turboprop engine mounted to the wing?
For a given turboprop plane such as the ATR-72, there doesn't seem to be a pylon as on turbofan driven planes. This question: How are engines mounted onto wings? has answers that detail how a pylon is attached to the engine, but not how the pylon is attached to the wing itself.
What I want to know is how in the case of the ATR-72 or similar, are the turboprop engines, or pylons for turbofans are attached to the wing itself. Are they attached to a special type of rib? Are they attached to the spar(s)? Or both, or an entirely different structure designed for this purpose? How do they avoid concentrating the load?

As usual an image is worth more than a thousand words (cutaway source):

As visible, the engine is mounted enclosed inside a truss structure (composed for example by the beams 191 and 199) interspersed by one frame (192) and one rear bulkhead (189). This whole structure is then attached to the front and rear spar at the same location where there's also a rib.

Ah, thanks, this really helps visualise it! From my limited understanding, it seems to be attached to the intersection of that front spar and mid-engine rib near the top and bottom, which in themselves are not special?

The design of the ribs doesn't seem to be specific but almost certainly the spar there is reinforced/thicker. But that really depends on the engineering choices made by the manufacturer: for example the rib design of the C295 is different from the other ribs for that location (number 62 in the linked cutaway).

Thanks, I understand now. By the way, where are you getting these cutaway images from? They are really helpful in understanding!

@keg504: any search engine is good, just look for the aircraft's name and the keyword "cutaway"

A turboprop isn't really different from the answers given in the question you link to.
There is typically a frame of tubes that hold the engine and take the loads back to the wing.  The frame will connect to both the front and rear spar.
Where a frame connects to the spar, there will be some fitting to act as a hardpoint for the connection.  Often, the ribs in this area will have either closer spacing or will be beefed up in some way.
Even when there is a pylon, there will be a frame through the pylon up to the wing, the skins of the pylon are mostly a fairing.
Here is a nice cutaway of the ATR-72 (these may not be perfectly accurate), but it gives some idea.
https://conceptbunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ATR_72.gif
Here is a photo of a nacelle with the cowl panels removed.
https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/64776_1583446914.jpg


text:
Commercial Pilot privileges - scenario confusion
Assuming the following variations of a scenario.

Your friend wants to pay you to fly them to Martha's Vineyard. You rent the aircraft from a local club.

Same as above, except your friend rents the aircraft.

The common explanation is that the first situation is not legal because you are providing both the plane and the pilot, but that the second is, because you are only providing yourself.
This doesn't make sense to me, because:
For the same reasons that you need an operating certificate for 1, you also need an operating certificate for 2.
In situation 1, you are acting as a private carrier, and need an operating certificate for private carriage. 91.501 only applies to large turbine aircraft, and "flying your friend to Martha's Vineyard" is not an exemption under 119.1.
In situation 2, it is still a private carriage operation. There is nothing changed about the situation that would qualify it for an exemption under 119.1. You still need an operating certificate under 119.23(b):

Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in §
91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat
configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat,
and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall—
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications
requirements in subpart C of this part;
(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of
part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable
only to commuter operations; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those
requirements.

It would seem that you need an operating certificate regardless of who rents the aircraft.
Some say that you don't need an operating certificate in situation 2, because it is a dry lease. However, I haven't found any regulation that exempts a dry lease from getting an operating certificate.

You didn't actually ask a question...

Regarding scenario #2, one thing you haven't mentioned is the status of the person renting the plane:  They would not be a passenger.  To rent the plane they would have to be a pilot, qualified and current in category and class, and checked out as proficient by the FBO.  And they wouldn't be just any pilot... they would be acting Pilot in Command for the entire flight.  I'm not sure you would even consider it an act of carriage if they allowed the other "passenger" (pilot) to manipulate the controls for some or even most of the flight, regardless of whether they paid them or not.

Because the PIC is never a "passenger"...

If your friend rents the plane, you are not providing "carriage," common or otherwise, and so 119.23(b) does not apply. When you provide "carriage," you are providing transportation as a whole service, which requires that you have operational control over both the aircraft and the crew.
If you are transporting other people as well this can get complicated. In that case your friend may be operating as a private carrier and would need an operating certificate.

For the last part, it depends. If the friend is the only one paying for the group, then it would be private carriage. If any of the other people were paying the friend, however, then it would not. The way I have gone over it is if someone is paying for the plane vs paying for a seat.


text:
A320 When to arm approach on RNAV or LNAV
Looking for answers on real/sim behavior on A320 Managed/Managed non-ILS (2D or 3D) approaches.
Airbus says to only press the APPR arm button when on the final leg with the Final App Fix as the "TO" waypoint on the Nav Display.
So, what happens if I press the APPR arm button when:

the "TO" waypoint is not the FAF?
when I am established on the intercept to the final approach course, e.g.: When the "intercept" line is solid?
When I am in HDG over NAV (blue) when on a heading to intercept the approach course?

Answers can be technical. I know a lot about aviation, just not much about A320, (and maybe a little out of date).
Much appreciated in advance.
EDIT:
FCOM

I have never heard that the APPR pushbutton should only be pressed when on the leg to the FAF. Pushing the button earlier will simply arm the respective modes and they will engage once the engagement criteria are met. In fact, the A320 FCTM recommends to arm the approach modes earlier, but to remove points from the flight plan which will not be overflown when on radar vectors:

When ATC gives radar vector and clears for final approach course interception, the crew will [for] managed approach

Select HDG according to ATC
Select APPR p/b on FCU
Check on FMA the final approach mode engagement

(Airbus A320 FCTM - Normal Operations - Non Precision Approach)
You can find all the details about arming and engagement conditions for the APP NAV and FINAL modes in the A320 FCOM:

The NON ILS approach includes the following managed modes:
APP NAV mode for lateral guidance
FINAL mode for vertical guidance
[...]
Arming Conditions
The pilot arms the APP NAV and FINAL modes by pressing the APPR pushbutton on the FCU, if all of the following conditions are met:

The aircraft is above 400 feet AGL.
The flight plan is valid (lateral and vertical profile).
The active flight plan has selected a NON ILS approach.
GA mode is not engaged.

The FMA displays "FINAL" and "APP NAV" in blue. If NAV mode was already engaged, APP NAV engages immediately.
[...]
Engagement Conditions
APP NAV and NAV modes engage under the same conditions:
If NAV mode was engaged, AP NAV engages immediately. If HDG/TRK is engaged, APP NAV engages when the intercept conditions are met (aircraft track line must intercept the flight plan active leg).
FINAL mode engages, if:

APPR phase is active, and the deceleration point has sequenced, and
APP NAV is engaged, and
Crosstrack error is less than 1.5 NM, and
FINAL is armed, and

The aircraft intercepts a descending leg of the vertical flight path, or
In V/S (FPA) or OPEN DES, the aircraft intercepts a level-off segment of the vertical flight profile, with an FCU-selected altitude different from this level-off segment.

(Airbus A320 FCOM - Autoflight - Flight Guidance - Non Precision Appproach Mode)

Note: I am assuming you were talking about managed FINAL APP mode here. However, some Airbus A320s are equipped with FMS Landing System (FLS), which works similar to a precision approach like ILS:

The FLS (FMS Landing System) [...] is an Airbus option offering a solution to fly 99% of approaches that are not ILS/MLS, with a barometric vertical profile.
It offers lateral and vertical guidance for a straight-in instrument approach, referenced from the aircraft position, along a trajectory retrieved from the FMS navigation database.

(Airbus: Safely Flying Non-Precision Instrument Approaches)

I added FCOM citation. Airbus terminology difference between FDP and FAF..? So, what you are saying is that as long as lateral Nav is established, then APPR pb is selected even if, say there are 3 waypoints before the FAF (If A, B, C were all in a line and you intercept at between A and B) and cleared on heading to intercept. So, is HDG over NAV blue considered laterally managed?

@WhoShock FDP is probably just the FAF in these cases. I think what the FCOM meant is that you have to clear waypoints before the intercept point from the flightplan, if you are radar vectored (see first quote in answer). But that intercept with the flight plan could hypothetically happen well before the FDP, that is just not typical for radar vectors. HDG over NAV blue is not yet laterally managed, but it will be once NAV (or APP NAV) becomes active.